G2 Cut and Embankment Strategy Report - 20141202 - v1

Sub-schedule A1 Design:
G2 Cut and Embankment Stability Strategy

Preliminary Cut and Embankment Stability Strategy Report
DISTRIBUTION
REVISION HISTORY
Revision
Date
ISSUE
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Status
Project Director
Name
Prepared
Signature
Reviewed
Approved
Date
File Location
Comments:
Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

A1 Design: Cut and Embankment Stability Strategy
257229011
Evaluation Criteria and Key Considerations

To be deleted from individual documents and only included in overarching executive summary
Responses will be evaluated against the Evaluation Criteria set out in the tables below. The Key
Considerations within each Evaluation Criterion do not form part of the evaluation but have been provided to
inform Proponents of some (but not necessarily all) key matters the State will consider in relation to each
Criterion.
The Lead Author is required to cross reference the relevant Key Considerations that have been addressed in
this document by completing the table below. You only need to cross reference the applicable Considerations
and all others can be left blank. A consolidated tabled will be included in the Overview for the Returnable
Schedule.
1a
Project Scope & functionality the appropriateness of the proposed design solution in terms of
achieving or exceeding the Project Scope and Project Functional Requirements.
Key Considerations
Reference
The State will evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed commercial solution
including the ownership structure of the entity that will enter into the Project Deed
with the State.
Key considerations in the evaluation of this criterion will include:
Travel times
Traffic capacity
Traffic movements
Freight efficiency, functionality and facilities
Road safety facilities and systems
Availability considerations (including flood immunity, slope stability, pavement
durability and minimising maintenance)
Mitigation of environmental, cultural resource and community impacts
Compatibility with future upgrades, adjacent land use and/or proposed
developments.
1b
1b Design requirements the suitability of the design solution to support the functional outcomes
and achieve or exceed the Project Minimum Requirements for all design elements.
Key Considerations
Reference
with the State.
Key considerations in the evaluation of this criterion will include:
Site investigation, analysis and selection of design input parameters
Application of relevant design standards
A1 Design: G2 Cut and Embankment Stability Strategy
257229011
STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

2
Design approach, methodology, analysis and/or modelling

Design outcomes and standard of design reports and drawings
Constructability and O&M compatibility considerations
Construction material selection, equipment standards and project specific
construction specifications.
1c
Innovation and whole-of-life considerations the extent to which appropriate innovation and
whole-of-life optimisation has been used to reduce overall cost, improve functional outcomes,
enhance freight efficiency and/or provide road user benefits (including the extent to which any design
departures are clearly identified, explained and justified).
Key Considerations
Reference
with the State.
Enhanced design functionality
Additional design capacity or design life
Improved road safety features (including design, construction and O&M)
Minimising maintenance requirements and provision of maintenance access,
particularly for long life asset (>25 years) components
Tangible and practical whole-of-life cost improvement initiatives
Examples where the proposed technical innovation or whole-of-life optimisation
approach has been used successfully in similar applications
The extent to which any proposed departures from the Project Minimum
Requirements are clearly identified, explained and justified
The cumulative effect of any proposed departures.

257229011

3
Glossary
Term
Definition

257229011

4
Acronym Definitions
Term
Definition

257229011

5
Table of Contents
1
Executive Summary................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 9
2.1
Project Overview............................................................................................................ 9
2.2
Purpose and Scope of Report........................................................................................9
Relationship to Project Objectives...........................................................................................9
Related Projects....................................................................................................................... 11
4.1
Warrego Highway Duplication......................................................................................11
4.2
OMaras Road Duplication...........................................................................................11
4.3
Boundary Street Upgrade.............................................................................................11
Design Standards and Criteria...............................................................................................12

5.1
Performance Criteria....................................................................................................12
5.2
Design Standards........................................................................................................12
5.3
TMR Geotechnical Minimum Design Standards...........................................................12
5.4
Design Assumptions....................................................................................................12
5.5
Design Exclusions........................................................................................................12
Methodology............................................................................................................................ 13
Geological and Geotechnical Models....................................................................................14
10
11
7.1
Design Parameters......................................................................................................14
7.2
Groundwater................................................................................................................ 14
7.3
Critical Sections...........................................................................................................14
Embankments.......................................................................................................................... 15
8.1
Slope Stability Analysis................................................................................................15
8.2
Settlement Analysis......................................................................................................15
8.3
Foundation Preparation................................................................................................15
8.4
Embankment Design Details........................................................................................15
Cuttings.................................................................................................................................... 16
9.1
Global Stability Analysis...............................................................................................16
9.2
Kinematic Analysis.......................................................................................................16
9.3
Rockfall Analysis.......................................................................................................... 16
9.4
Slope Surface Treatment.............................................................................................16
9.5
Cutting Design Details..................................................................................................16
Monitoring and Instrumentation.............................................................................................17

10.1
Embankments..............................................................................................................17
10.2
Cuttings........................................................................................................................ 17
Risk Management.................................................................................................................... 18

257229011

7
12
Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 19
13
References............................................................................................................................... 20
14
Appendices.............................................................................................................................. 21

257229011

9
1 Executive Summary
This should be a high level summary of the content of the report, which can be read and appreciated by both
technical and non-technical readers. Essentially, a reader could read this section only and understand at a
high level our solution and how it will benefit the Project / State / users.
Where possible make obvious connections to relevant Key Considerations, Evaluation Criteria and Project
Objectives. Its also important to link to our strategy (a greater connection) and key messages.
Response
2 Introduction
2.1 Project Overview
The Toowoomba Second Range Crossing (TSRC) Project is the largest Commonwealth Government
commitment to a single road project in Queenslands history. Addressing a recognised constraint in the
National Land Transport Network, the TSRC will ensure freight efficiencies as well as significantly improving
driver safety and community amenity.
The TSRC is a proposed bypass route to the north of Toowoomba, approximately 41 km in length. It will
connect the Warrego Highway from Helidon in the east, to Charlton (west of Toowoomba), and to the Gore
Highway at Athol in the west. The TSRC is the centrepiece of major economic development taking place in
south-western Queensland and once complete will create a safer, faster and more efficient route for
connecting freight to major ports and markets
The Nexus Infrastructure consortium comprises global leaders in Public Private Partnerships (PPP) and the
design, construction, operation, maintenance and finance of transport infrastructure. We bring together the
ideal balance of international leaders and highly experienced, Queensland-based resources and offer the
State full project capability, worlds best practice, an unrivalled depth of resources, financial capacity, local
knowledge and insight and an enviable track record of successful, proven delivery of comparable projects at a
local, national and international level.
Nexus Infrastructure is committed to working in partnership with the State to achieve and exceed the Project
Objectives and to drive outcomes through innovation, value for money, whole-of-life efficiencies and a desire to
a create a world-class transport solution for Queensland.
2.2 Purpose and Scope of Report

Response
3 Relationship to Project Objectives

The States Project Objectives are as follows:
1 Address a recognised constraint in the National Land Transport Network by improving the efficiency of
freight movements and encouraging economic development
2 Deliver greater benefits for road users and reduce the number of heavy vehicles and through-traffic using
urban arterial roads in central Toowoomba
3 Improve safety on the network by providing an improved standard of range crossing with improved design
features
4 Improve community amenity, safety and functionality by directing heavy vehicle traffic away from the current
range crossing and Toowoomba town centre
5 Improve transport capacity over the range to meet future growth needs in the region

257229011

10
6 Protect and, where possible, enhance natural and cultural resources, and the environment
7 Support sustainable communities and land use development
8 Achieve value for money outcomes for the State
9 Secure timely delivery of TSRC
10 Procure the Project in a way that encourages private sector innovation on technical and commercial
aspects of the Project.
Response

257229011

11
4 Related Projects
Response
4.1 Warrego Highway Duplication

4.2 OMaras Road Duplication
4.3 Boundary Street Upgrade

257229011

12
5 Design Standards and Methodology

5.1 Critical embankments and cuttings
A critical cross-section has been identified for each embankment and cutting based on the height and
prevailing geology.
Detailed analysis has been undertaken on the following cross sections.
Table 1 Critical cutting cross sections
Feature
From
To
Total Length
[m]
Maximum Cutting Height (m)
Cut 02
2277
2673
396
11.5
Cut 10
7002
7378
376
47
Cut 15
9441
9753
312
22
Cut 20
11296
11561
265
12
Cut 21
12012
12801
789
51
Cut 24
13898
14217
319
32
Cut 25
14465
14803
338
37
Cut 26
14834
15123
289
40
Cut 27
15627
15993
366
31
Cut 35
23050
23874
824
26
Detailed analysis has been undertaken on the following embankment cross-sections.

Table 2 Critical embankment cross sections
Feature
From
To
Total Length
[m]
Maximum Embankment
Height (m)
Embankment
17
10695
10905
210
40
Embankment
22
13139
13365
226
45
Embankment
23
13540
13898
358
38
Embankment
25
15123
15627
504
40* zoning
Embankment
26A
16493
16797
304
48* sidelong
Embankment
13
Embankment
27
257229011

13
Embankment
30
20576
21150
574
22* high embankment on

black soil
5.2 Load Cases

The following load cases have been assessed for each embankment and cutting cross-section.
Table 3 Loads Cases and Minimum Factors of Safety
ID
Load Case
Groundwater
Level
Analysis
Procedure
Factor of
Safety
Long term
Piezometric
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level
Effective
stress
analysis
drained
parameters
1.5
Long term Ru
Minimum Ru
coefficient
0.15
Effective
stress
analysis
drained
parameters
1.5
Short term
construction
N/A
Total stress
analysis for
low
permeability
materials
1.3
Worst-case rainfall
event Q2000
Worst case
groundwater
level
Effective
stress
analysis
drained
parameters
1.0
DTMR no fail
criteria
Rapid drawdown
Drawdown
from
inundation
level
Total stress
analysis for
low
permeability
materials
1.3
For
embankment
s only.
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level
Total stress
analysis for
low
permeability
materials
1.15
Operating Basis
Earthquake (OBE)
Comments
Apply only if
there is toe
inundation
Analysis
requirement
TBC
5.3 Surcharge Loading

The following surcharge loads apply for each load case.
Table 4 Loading
Condition
Applicable analysis ID
Location
Road

257229011
Service
Bench
14
Surface
Corridor/Bench
Long term
1, 2, 5, 6
20kPa
10kPa
5kPa
Short term
constructi
on
10kPa
10kPa
5kPa
Worst-case
rainfall
event
1:2000
10kPa
0kPa
0kPa
No surcharges are applied to the surface of any sloping ground.
5.4 Software
Slope stability analyses have been carried out using the following software.
Limit equilibrium stability
> Geostudio Slope/w using Morgenstern-Price analysis method
Seepage analysis (if required) Seep/w
Kinematic analysis DIPS, Rocplane and Swedge (where applicable)
5.5 Design Parameters

Geotechnical design parameters required for the relevant embankment and cutting slope stability analyses are
presented in G1 Preliminary Geological and Geotechnical Report.
In accordance with DTMR Geotechnical Design Standard - Minimum Requirements, for fill materials the
following maximum values apply:
Geological Material
Description
c' (kPa)
(deg)
Fill
Rockfill
40
Earthfill
30
5.6 Groundwater
TO BE UPDATED ONCE ANALYSIS COMPLETE

257229011

15
6 Embankments
6.1 Slope Stability Analysis
TABLE TO BE FINALISED FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF ANALYSIS
Table 5 Embankment Stability Analysis Results
Location
ID
Groundwater
Level
Geometry Factor of Safety
Long term
Piezometric
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level
See
Slope/W
sketch
Long term Ru
Minimum Ru
coefficient
0.15
Short term
construction
N/A
1.3
1.29
Worst-case
rainfall event
Q2000
Worst case
groundwater
level
1.0
1.46
Rapid
drawdown
Drawdown
from
inundation
level
Operating
Basis
Earthquake
(OBE)
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level
Embankment 1
17
Load Case
Comments
Require
d
Achieved
1.5
1.67
N/A
TBA
1.15
1.21
6.2 Settlement Analysis

Table 6 Embankment Settlement Analysis Results
ID
Approximate Compressibl
Height (m)
e Layer
Thickness
(m)
Estimated Settlement (mm)

Elastic
Primary
Seconda
ry
Total
6.3 Embankment Design Details

257229011

16

Location
Items
Description
Embankment 17
Topsoil thickness
Unsuitable thickness
Foundation preparation/ground
improvement
Partial colluvium replacement with

rockfill below batter toe (see sketch)
Embankment drainage
Erosion protection measures
Erosion protection measures
Rockfill outer zone and vegetated batter

slopes
Fill source
Won from adjacent cuttings
Batter Slopes and Benching
1V:2H, slope height = 10m, bench width

= 4-6m
Embankment
Zoning
Zone
MRTS04
Class
Zone Width
CBR (if
applicable)
Subgrade
A/B
Upper Zone
A/B
Outer Zone
A/B
Core
Over 20m
Rockfill
Rockfill
5 m at the
top and 30 m
at the toe
6.4 Discussion and Recommendations

TO BE FINALISED UPON COMPLETION OF ANALYSIS

257229011

17
7 Cuttings
7.1 Initial geometry
The initial batter slopes were designed based on the rock mass weathering profile. Rock mass weathering is a
good indicator to depict the overall condition of the slopes (which is indirectly related to degree of fracturing,
strength and material properties). The initial batter slopes profiles are summarised in Error: Reference source
not found. Each zone was assigned appropriate Mohr-Coulomb parameters that were derived from lithologyweathering parametric study presented in G1 Preliminary Geological and Geotechnical Report. The stability
analyses of these initial profiles were carried out using SLOPE/W software.
Table 7 Batter slopes for initial design
Rock Mass weathering
Batter slope (V:H)
Residual soils, colluvium, extremely weathered

basalt, extremely weathered and highly weathered
sedimentary rock
1V:2H (27 degrees) to 1V:1.5H (34 degrees)
Highly weathered to moderately weathered basalt

and most moderately weathered sedimentary rock
1V:1H (45 degrees)
Moderately weathered to slightly weathered basalt

and slightly weathered (mostly sandstone)
sedimentary rock
1V:0.75H (53 degrees)
Slightly weathered basalt and slightly weathered

sandstone (Cut 10)
1V:0.5H (63 degrees)
In cuts where defect data was available from borehole televiewer, kinematic analysis was carried to identify
potential failures modes that may be governed by geological structures present within the rock mass. When a
failure mode was identified, an appropriate stability analysis (eg planar or wedge) was carried out and the
results for each cut presented in the following sections.
7.2 Slope Stability Analysis

Engineering software package Geo-Slope SLOPE/W Ver. 2007 was used to carry out the cut section stability
limit equilibrium analyses. The Morgenstern and Price (halfsine function) method and optimisation of the
critical slip location have been adopted for the analyses in the SLOPE/W. Both local and global stability of the
slip surface for the cut section have been assessed.
The stability analyses are based on the selected critical cuts shown in Table 1. The summary of the minimum
factor of safety for each critical cut and for each load case is presented in Table 8.
Table 8 Summary of stability analyses
Locatio
n
ID
Cut 10
Load Case
Groundwater Geometry
Level
Factor of Safety
Comments
Required Achieved
Long term
Average or
Best
Piezometric estimate
groundwater
level
1V:0.5H
1.5
2.74
Global and local

stabilty satisfies
required FOS.
Long term
1V:0.5H
1.5
2.13
Global and local
Minimum Ru

257229011

18
Cut 21
Ru
coefficient
0.15
Long term
with
tension
crack
minimum
2.5m
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level
Worst-case
rainfall
event
Q2000
Worst case
groundwater
level
Operating
Basis
Earthquake
(OBE)
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level
stabilty satisfies
required FOS.
1V:0.5H
1V:0.5H
1V:0.5H
1.3
1.0
1.15
1.5
Long term
Ru
Minimum Ru
coefficient
0.15
Long Term
flooded
tension
crack,
minimum
2.5m depth
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level
1V:1.5H and
1V:1H slopes
1.5
Worst case
groundwater

257229011
Global stability
satisfies the
required FOS.
1V:1.5H and
1V:1H slopes
1V:1.5H and
1.59
Localised
stability of the
benches
containing XW
Claystone and
Coal do not
meet the
required FOS
for 1V:1H batter
slopes.
1.65
Global stability
satisfies the
required FOS.
1.47
1.3
1V:1H on all
batters
Worst-case
rainfall
Global stability
satisfies the
required FOS.
1.25
1V:1H on all
batters
2.60
Global stabilty
satisfies
required FOS.
Global stability
satisfies
required FOS.
1V:1H on all
batters
2.38
Long term
Average or
Best
groundwater
level
1V:1.5H and
1V:1H slopes
2.73
1.68
Global stability
satisfies the
required FOS.
1.54
1.0
1.12
Global stability
satisfies the

19
event
Q2000
level
required FOS.
1V:1H slopes
1V:1H on all
batters
Cut 26
Operating
Basis
Earthquake
(OBE)
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level
Long term
Average or
Best
groundwater
level
1.02
1V:1.5H and
1V:1H slopes
1.15
1.58
Global
1.5
1.7 2.0
1.5
1.4 - 2.6
1.5
1.3 - 1.5
1.5
1.5 - 1.8
1.5
1.3 - 2.1
1.5
1.8 - 1.9
1.3
1.5 - 1.7
1.3
1.4 - 2.6
1.3
1.3 - 1.5
1.0
1.6 - 1.7
Local
1V:1.0-1.5H
Batters
(All except
bottom batter
slope)
1V:0.5H
Batters
(Bottom batter
slope)
Long term
Ru
Minimum Ru
coefficient
0.15
Global
Local
1V:1.0-1.5H
Batters
(All except
bottom batter
slope)
1V:0.5H
Batters
(Bottom batter
slope)
Long term
Piezometric
with
Tension
Crack
Worst Case
Rainfall
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level
Flooded
tension
crack in
residual
material,
minimum
2.5 m depth
Worst case
groundwater

257229011
Global
Local
1V:1.0-1.5H
Batters
(All except
bottom batter
slope)
1V:0.5H
Batters
(Bottom batter
slope)
Global
Global stability
satisfies the
required FOS.
Horizontal
design
acceleration of
0.03g.
FOS > 1.6 for
lower bound
XW Mudstone /
Claystone
parameters
Low FOS for
bench
intersecting XW
Mudstone /
Claystone
FOS > 1.4 for

lower bound
XW Mudstone /
Claystone
parameters
Low FOS for
bench
intersecting XW
Mudstone /
Claystone
FOS > 1.4 for

lower bound
XW Mudstone /
Claystone
parameters
Low FOS for
bench
intersecting XW
Mudstone /
Claystone
FOS > 1.4 for

lower bound

20
Event
Q2000
level
Local N/A
Operating
Basis
Earthquake
(OBE)
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level
Global
XW Mudstone /
Claystone
parameters
1.15
1.6 - 1.9
Local N/A
Horizontal
Acceleration
Factor = 0.03g
Total stress
analysis for low
permeability
materials
FOS > 1.5 for
lower bound
XW Mudstone /
Claystone
parameters
Cut 27
Long term
Average or
Best
groundwater
level
Global
1.5
>3.3
Global stability
satisfies the
required FOS.
Local
1.5
>1.85
Targeting RS
@CH15800 and
HW Basalt
@CH15750
1V:0.7H and
1V:0.8H
Batters in
HW/MW
Basalt
FOS satisfied
1V1.5H and
1V:0.8H in
Residual Soil
2
Long term
Ru = 0.15
Minimum Ru
coefficient
0.15
Global
1.5
>2.93
Global stability
satisfies the
required FOS.
Local
1.5
1.15
Targeting RS
@CH15800 and
HW Basalt
@CH15750
1V:0.7H and
1V:0.8H
Batters in
HW/MW
Basalt
Desired FoS not

achieved within
Residual Soil
batter at
1V:0.8H
1V1.5H and
1V:0.8H in
Residual Soil
3
Long term
Piezometric
with
Tension
Crack
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level

257229011
Global
1V:0.7H and
1V:0.8H
Batters in
HW/MW
1.3
>3.3
Global stability
satisfies the
required FOS.

21
Worst-case
rainfall
event
Q2000
Flooded
tension
crack,
minimum 2.5
m depth, in
residual soil
Basalt
Worst case
groundwater
level
Global
1V:1.5H and
1V:0.8H in
Residual Soil
1.0
>2.85
Global stability
satisfies the
required FOS
1.15
3.1
Horizontal
acceleration =
0.03g
1V:0.7H and
1V:0.8H
Batters in
HW/MW
Basalt
1V:1.5H and
1V:0.8H in
Residual Soil
Operating
Basis
Earthquake
(OBE)
Average or
Best
estimate
groundwater
level
Global
1V:0.7H or
flatter
Global stability
satisfies the
required FOS
7.3 Kinematic Analysis

7.3.1 Methodology
For rock block failures to occur in rock mass two conditions must be present:
Freedom for blocks to move in relation to the slope geometry (slope angle and orientation)
Shear strength characteristics of the discontinuities must be overcome.
The first is determined using kinematic analysis and the second is based on shear strength characteristics of
defects, either estimated or tested, for critical defects that are likely to form the failure plane/s.
Kinematic analysis is performed to identify the modes of failures that are likely to occur in relation to the cut
slope geometry and critical defects orientation. For this analysis, an approximate friction cone angle is required
for the critical defect. This was estimated based on defect description provided in the logs (joint roughness and
joint infill). The defect descriptions were matched with a range of friction angle published as shown in Barton
2002.
The kinematic analysis was performed in the following manner:
Identification of geological structural clusters (defect concentrations) from borehole televiewer data (also
referred as RAAX data). Software Dips Ver 5 by Rocscience was used for summarising the defect data.
This software enabled plotting of hundreds data of points for each cut on a stereoplot and assigning defect
cluster numbers or sets numbers
Estimation of friction cone angle from defect description from logs. This is an indicative angle for kinematic
analysis and generally a low angle was chosen to capture possible failures that may occur. It should be
noted that only the properties of defects that were most critical in the set identified were considered. For
example, a cluster (set) may comprise of joints, shears and bedding partings. The infill and roughness
properties of the most critical feature (eg. shears with clay infill) were chosen to represent the set in the
friction cone determination and in subsequent analysis. This avoided the masking of many favourable
properties against the a few but critical feature in determining the overall rock slope stability
257229011

22
Identification of potential failure modes (eg. planar, wedge) based on chosen friction angle
If there was a potential for failure to occur, then stability analysis was carried out for the failure mode
identified
If there was no potential for defect controlled failures, no block failure stability was carried out.
The defect data from televiewer was plotted and cluster between 2 to 6 sets were identified on stereoplots for
each cut Table 9. The mean planes identified from the stereoplots were used for kinematic analysis for
identification of failure modes (Wyllie 1992, Wyllie & Mah 2005).
It should be noted that in kinematic analysis, only potential failure modes are identified based on the estimated
friction cone angle. This analysis does not include other factors such as the effects of ground water, external
loads and shear strength of discontinuities and it should not be mistaken for stability analysis.
The conditions required for the various failure modes in rock is as follow:
7.3.2 Planar Failure

For planar failures to occur, the following geometrical conditions must be present (Wyllie & Mah 2005):
The sliding plane must strike parallel or near parallel within approximately 20o from the slope face
The sliding plane must daylight on the slope face
The dip of the plane must be greater than the friction angle of the plane
The upper end of the sliding surface must either intersect the upper slope (eg on bench) or terminate in a
tension crack.
7.3.3 Wedge Failure

Compared to planar failure, wedge failure is more common as the failure is controlled by at least two
intersecting discontinuities. The direction of sliding of the kinematically possible wedge is less restrictive than
the planar or toppling failures. The following conditions must be present:
The dip of the slope must exceed the dip of the line of the intersection of the two discontinuities forming the
wedge
The line of the intersection of the two discontinuities forming the wedge must daylight
The shear strength of the line of the intersection forming the wedge must be overcome.
7.3.4 Toppling Failure

The following conditions must be present for toppling failures to occur:
The dip direction of structure dipping into the cut must be within 20o of the dip direction of the slope
The dip of the planes must be steep enough for interlayer slip to occur.
7.3.5 Kinematic Analysis Results

The results of the kinematic analysis undertaken for each critical cutting is summarised in Table 9.
Table 9 Summary of Kinematic Analysis
Location
Cut 10
Cutting
gradient
Major Joint
Set
Dip
Dip
Cone
Direction Friction
Angle
(deg)
Potential Failure
Toppling
Planar
1V: 0.5H
237
30
LHS X
LHS X LHS X
2 (minor)
88
232
30
RHS - X
RHS - X
3 (random)
88
123
30

257229011
Wedge
RHS - X

23
4 (random)
86
183
30
49
102
30
49
344
30
1V: 1H
54
308
30
LHS X
LHS X LHS -
(Basalt data
only)
50
234
30
RHS - X
RHS - X
28
278
30
76
007
30
195
30
(Sedimentary 2
data only)
3
81
064
30
LHS X
LHS X LHS X
RHS - X
RHS - X
RHS - X
84
163
30
1V:1H
241
30
LHS - X
Sandstone
90
223
30
LHS - X
RHS - X
LHS - X
RHS - X
1V:1H to
1V:0.5H
192
18
LHS -
RHS -
LHS - X
LHS X
LHS X LHS
RHS - X
RHS - X
Cut 21
1V: 1H
Cut 26
Cut 27
Interbedded
Sandstone /
Siltstone /
Mudstone
67
72
18
1V: 0.7H in
Basalt only
53
104
30
51
344
30
51
302
30
Random
49
233
30
RHS - X
RHS - X
RHS -
LHS - X
RHS -
RHS -
7.3.6 Failure Analysis

Once the mode of failure was identified from kinematic analysis, an appropriate analysis method was chosen.
For wedges failures, software Swedge Ver 5 has been used. This software is a limit equilibrium programs
produced by Rocscience Inc and was written based on equations and methods found in Hoek & Bray, 1981.
The results of the failure analysis area summarised in Table 10.
Table 10 Summary Failure Analysis
Location
Cut 10
Cutting
gradient
Sets
analysed
Potential Failure Factor of Safety

Toppling
Planar
Wedge
1V: 0.5H
(LHS)
All
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
1V: 0.5H
(RHS)
All
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur

257229011

24
Cut 21
1V: 1H (LHS)
Sets 1 & 3
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
Wedge volume
0.026m3
Wedge weight
0.07t
trace length 1m
FOS 4.94
Wedge volume
0.205m3
Wedge weight
0.53t
trace length 2m
FOS 3.66
1V: 1.5H
(LHS)
Sets 1 & 3
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
Wedge volume
0.032m3
Wedge weight
0.08t
trace length 1m
FOS 4.71
Wedge volume
0.256m3
Wedge weight
0.66t
trace length 2m
FOS 3.43
1V: 1H (RHS)
Sets 1 & 4
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
Wedge volume
0.013m3
Wedge weight
0.03t
trace length 1m
FOS 1.22
Wedge volume
0.100m3
Wedge weight
0.263t
trace length 2m
FOS 1.22
1V: 1.5H
(RHS)
Sets 3 & 5
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
Wedge volume
0.006m3
Wedge weight
0.02t
trace length 1m
FOS 6.19
Wedge volume
0.052m3
Wedge weight
0.14t
trace length 2m
FOS 3.59
Cut 26
Sandstone:
Sets 1 & 2

257229011
LHS & RHS:
LHS & RHS:
LHS & RHS:

25
1V: 1H &
1V:0.5H
Interbedded
Sandstone /
Siltstone /
Mudstone
N/A Unlikely to
occur
Sets 1 & 2
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
LHS & RHS:
LHS & RHS:
LHS:
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
Occur
RHS:
1V:1H
&1V:0.5H
Wedge volume
0.4 m3
Wedge height
0.93 Tonnes
Trace length
5.42 to 6.48 m
FOS(a) 1.7
Cut 27
1V: 0.7H
(RHS)
Set 1 v
Set 4
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
Wedge volume
0.026m3
Wedge weight
0.160t
trace length 1m
Externally
applied force
0.1t
Water pressure
in slope - Yes
FOS 1.58
1V: 0.7H
(LHS)
Set 2 v
Set 3
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
Wedge volume
0.011m3
Wedge weight
0.028t
trace length 1m
Externally
applied force
No
Water pressure
in slope - No
FOS 0.71
1V: 0.7H
(LHS)
Set 2 v
Set 4

257229011
N/A Unlikely to
occur
N/A Unlikely to
occur
Wedge volume
0.024m3
Wedge weight
0.0.63t
trace length 1m
Externally
applied force
0.1t
Water pressure
in slope - Yes

26
FOS 1.48
7.4 Rockfall Analysis

An engineering software package, RocFall Version 4.02 (from Rocscience), has been used for the assessment
of the cut slopes at risk of rock falls. RocFall is a two dimensional statistical analysis of rock fall and is based
on a lumped mass model by using the Newtonian equations of motion and the conservation of energy principle
to calculate the kinetic energy of a boulder falling, bouncing and rolling down to the toe of the slope.
In the assessment of rock fall the following assumptions have been made:
The release point of a loose block is assumed to be falling from the top of a 7 m or 10m batter high batter
slope
Each simulation case is assumed to release 500 loose blocks
Two scenarios of contact surface for the rock fall are assumed as follows:
Scenario A: Soil with little vegetation on bench surface
Scenario B: Clean hard rock cut bench surface with no vegetation.
The coefficient of restitution extracted from the RocFall manual for these scenarios in the analyses are
summarised in Table 11 below.
Table 11 Contact surface materials parameters for RocFall
Scenario
Contact surface of materials
Coefficient of Restitution
Rn (Normal)
RT (Tangential)
Mean
St. Dev.
Mean
St. Dev.
Clean hard rock cut surface
0.53
0.04
0.99
0.04
Soil with little vegetation on cut surface
0.4
0.04
0.9
0.04
A&B
Pavement road
0.45
0.06
0.9
0.06
The friction angle of loose blocks on to the contact surface in the analysis is assumed to be 30 degrees.
In the rock fall analyses, two cases of analyses have been carried out:
Case 1: The maximum impact energy on fence with little vegetation on the bench surface
Case 2: The maximum distance of rock end-point from toe of the slope with no vegetation on the bench
surface.
A summary of the analyses carried out for each cut are presented in Table 12.
TO BE COMPLETED FOLLOWING ANALYSIS
Table 12 Summary of Rocfall analyses results
Cut
Case 1: Max. impact energy on fence

(Joules)

257229011
Case 2: Max. rock end-point from toe

(m)

27
7.5 Discussion and Recommendations

TO BE FINALISEDFOLLOWING COMPLETION OF ANALYSIS
7.6

257229011

28
8 Monitoring and Instrumentation

8.1 Embankments
TO BE UPDATED
8.2 Cuttings
TO BE UPDATED

257229011

29
9 Risk Management
TO BE UPDATED FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF ANALYSIS

257229011

30
10 Conclusion
TO BE UPDATED FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF ANALYSIS

257229011

31
11 References

257229011

32
12 Appendices
Appendix A Embankment Design Calculations
Appendix B Cutting Design Calculations

257229011

33

257229011

34

G2 Cut and Embankment Strategy Report - 20141202 - v1

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

G2 Cut and Embankment Strategy Report - 20141202 - v1

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Sub-schedule A1 Design:

G2 Cut and Embankment Stability Strategy

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

Evaluation Criteria and Key Considerations

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

Design approach, methodology, analysis and/or modelling

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

Purpose and Scope of Report........................................................................................9

Relationship to Project Objectives...........................................................................................9

Warrego Highway Duplication......................................................................................11

OMaras Road Duplication...........................................................................................11

Boundary Street Upgrade.............................................................................................11

Design Standards and Criteria...............................................................................................12

TMR Geotechnical Minimum Design Standards...........................................................12

Geological and Geotechnical Models....................................................................................14

Slope Stability Analysis................................................................................................15

Embankment Design Details........................................................................................15

Global Stability Analysis...............................................................................................16

Slope Surface Treatment.............................................................................................16

Cutting Design Details..................................................................................................16

Monitoring and Instrumentation.............................................................................................17

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

2.2 Purpose and Scope of Report

3 Relationship to Project Objectives

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

4.1 Warrego Highway Duplication

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

5 Design Standards and Methodology

Maximum Cutting Height (m)

Detailed analysis has been undertaken on the following embankment cross-sections.

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

22* high embankment on

5.2 Load Cases

5.3 Surcharge Loading

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

No surcharges are applied to the surface of any sloping ground.

5.5 Design Parameters

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Project

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

Geometry Factor of Safety

6.2 Settlement Analysis

Estimated Settlement (mm)

6.3 Embankment Design Details

STRICTLTY COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

TABLE TO BE FINALISED FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF ANALYSIS

Partial colluvium replacement with

Rockfill outer zone and vegetated batter

Won from adjacent cuttings

Batter Slopes and Benching

1V:2H, slope height = 10m, bench width

6.4 Discussion and Recommendations